All right. I've decided to post here after all, rather than the ShadowSax discussion or the 'mentally ill posters' one, although my answer could be shoehorned into either thread. One reason I've had to think about this is, I think, because the general principles on which I make the 'should x be banned' decision, in each individual case, have evolved fairly organically over the course of Barbelith's span, with the relative handful of posters who've been booted off the board. These principles arise from my own attempts, as a moderator (and, previously, admin), to 'interpret' Tom's edicts (I appreciate that the linked one is about post/thread deletion rather than banning, but it enumerates what Tom thinks of as "actual abuses") as well as reflecting my own personal priorities, my professional training and my experience with the now-banned individuals, on and occasionally off Barbelith. As I've said elsewhere, I'm increasingly seeing similarities with the Real Life framework within which Mental Health Act assessments and assessments of capacity (of various sorts) are conducted.
I'm taking "personal boundaries" to mean the generalities along which I, personally, reach an opinion on whether or not someone ought to be banned. Note that, while I think my own decision-making process is a valid (and fair) one, I fully appreciate that others have different priorities, and will reach their conclusion via a different route. Tom's given us broad guidelines which, inevitably, we apply on an individual basis; the bigger question, I suppose, is how we structure any given banning process to either take all of these individual approaches into account, or try to streamline/systematise them. In a way, I'm quite glad that spamming/trolling/harassing behaviour on Barbelith hasn't been so bad that we've had to do this as yet.
All of which is a bit of a tangent. So anyway. When addressing "harassment, sustained trolling, libel, spam and the like", I'll generally be thinking along the following lines:
There should be, generally speaking, a high threshold for banning people. Plenty of room for moveable-feastiness within this, I'm sure.
What demonstrable effect has this had on the community, and what's the likely future effect? I'm with you on generally prioritising the integrity of the community as a whole, but harassment, say, is frequently targeted at individual posters, so impact on individuals/Barbelith will generally overlap rather than be completely distinct. I'm also aware that this community is made up of individuals with widely varying opinions, so the defining of intangibles ("misogyny", "homophobia", "snark") is always going to be imperfect, consensus rather than absolutes.
And, to a lesser extent,
What demonstrable effect has this had on the individual (mooted for banning), and what's the likely future effect? I certainly wouldn't posit this as strongly as not believing in banning unless it benefits the bannee, but it's been something I not atypically try to factor into my analysis, albeit as a minor concern. Examples would be strong evidence of mental illness, which may push the decision-to-ban either way, and probably shades into
Is the continued presence/interaction of [proposed bannee] viable? This is perhaps where my own approach most differs from yours, Nina, and I'm aware that it irritates those who might not see the element of 'future potential' as relevant. 'Viability' would encompass things like the possibility/probability of constructive change, and someone's ability/willingness to adjust their outlook and/or mode of engagement sufficiently to be accepted here. This also hinges, obviously, on the community's ability/willingness to accept them, and I'm aware that this particular dynamic can fluctuate over time and between individual Barbeloids.
It's in the assessment of 'viability' that I like to try to gain a sense of someone's posting style(s) - whether antagonistic or conciliatory, flexible or limited, insightless or self-reflective, fixed or tolerant of doubt - and, ideally, I prefer to do this by engaging in a dialogue with them myself. In this way, I'll form an opinion - a subjective one, certainly, but arguably an 'expert' one, since these are qualities I'm called upon to assess on a daily basis in my work, and I think I'm reasonably good at it.
(Of course, it's perfectly possible to regard any opinion on possible/probable change as specious "future-telling". I'd argue that it's more possible to tentatively gauge future posting viability with an individual poster who's here and talking than it is to divine the perhaps-behaviour of hypothetical posters who are either equivocally absent or might have decided not to join. I generally wouldn't allow the speculated-upon opinions of such ghosts in the ether to influence my should-we-ban-x decision. I may include 'future potential' in my decision-making process, but I tend to confine this to posters who're actually present and available for questioning on the board.)
Stuff that happens off-board may be of relevance. Usually not, but I wouldn't discount it. It's tricky and it complicates things, but off-board interaction might well be a factor in an individual instance of harassment, say, and might legitimately be included in the banning decision.
What precedent does this set? Given the changing nature of individuals, the community itself and the Internet in general, I think it's probably impossible not to think about this, even in a vague sense. It is vague, and a minor consideration, but it's there at the back of my mind when I'm addressing the question of banning someone. I realise this could be seen to cut across my assertion that I generally don't factor in "what if someone somewhere reads this and decides Barbelith's too 'ist' for them to join". It's probably fair to say I'm thinking more of the implications for the treatment of future newbies who post in an abrasive or challenging way.
I'm aware that there's considerable scope for debate around each one of these points, but that's all I'll say for now. Interesting exercise; thankyou, Nina. |
